School District Ordered to Produce Records of Investigation

The Fourth Appellate District granted a petition for writ of mandate. The court held that the fact that a petitioner already possessed documents he was seeking under the California Public Records Act did not necessarily render his request moot.

John Caldecott worked in the human resources department of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. He filed a complaint about his supervisor. The complaint alleged a hostile work environment, as well as multiple other improprieties, including improper approval and reporting of compensation for an administrator; recommendations of pay increases using improper criteria; incorrect reporting of income used to calculate retirement income; approval of improper salaries for new employees; and failure to audit the retirement agency’s reporting practices.

The district allegedly failed to act on that complaint. Shortly thereafter, Caldecott was terminated.

Caldecott made a request to the district under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), asking that it produce copies of its response to his complaint against his supervisor and an e-mail Caldecott sent to the district’s board regarding its response to his complaint. The district refused.

Caldecott filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to compel the district’s release of the documents.

The trial court denied the petition, finding that his request was moot because Caldicott already had all of the documents he was seeking. Additionally, the court reasoned found the documents were directly and inextricably linked to Caldecott’s claim of a hostile and abusive work environment, which was an internal personnel matter exempt from disclosure under CPRA.

Caldecott petitioned the court of appeal for relief.

The court of appeal granted Caldecott’s writ petition, holding that the public interest in disclosure of the documents outweighed any privacy interests.

The court first addressed the trial court’s finding that Caldecott’s possession of the documents at issue rendered his request moot. That was error. The issue was not Caldecott’s current possession of the documents. Caldecott sought the documents so that he would be able to promulgate them publicly without fear of liability for doing so.

The court rejected as disingenuous the district’s claim that Caldecott was free to release any of the documents is his possession and that the district had not tried to keep him from doing so. If it did not object to such release, it would not have denied Caldecott’s CPRA request and strenuously opposed both writ petitions. The heart of the district’s opposition was that the documents should not be released due to the alleged privacy of their contents. On this record, the court found, Caldecott’s possession of the documents was not a basis to withhold them.

Turning to the merits, the court found a strong public interest in judging how Caldectt’s supervisor district responded to his claims, especially in light of his almost immediate decision to terminate Caldecott without cause. Likewise, there was a strong public interest in assessing how the district’s elected board treated the serious misconduct allegations against its highest ranking administrator. The numerous newspaper articles and blogs included in the record confirmed that public interest. Disclosure would shed light on the district’s performance of its duties.

Having conducted an independent review, the court further disagreed with the trial court’s overly generalized characterization of the documents as pertaining solely to Caldecott’s claim of a hostile work environment. They also pertained to Caldecott’s allegations of improprieties as to employee compensation, income reporting for retirement purposes, and audit reporting to the retirement agency. Caldecott’s own supervisory role in the district’s personnel department, and his 10-year tenure in that department, lent weight and credibility to his claims. The court found no evidence to support the district’s claim Caldecott was nothing more than a disgruntled employee.

The court remanded to the trial court with directions to conduct an in camera review of the requested documents to determine if any were protected by attorney-client privilege. The documents were also to be redacted to delete the identities of and personal information about unrelated third parties. The trial court was then to enter a new order compelling the district to produce the nonprivileged or redacted documents.

Caldecott v. Superior Court (Newport Mesa Unified School District)